2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff, a company running a building management service business, etc., employs BC life, DE life, F (G life), HI living, J (K life, L (M), NO living, P (P (hereinafter referred to as the “instant workers”), is the last day of the year in which the pertinent workers reach the retirement age of 63 years, and the employees after July 1, 2006 shall be the last day of the year in which they reach the retirement age of 61 years.

B. The Plaintiff, among the instant workers from April 1, 2004, from May 18, 2005, from September 1, 2006, from January 1, 2007, from J and L, from January 1, 2007, from January 1, 2007, from H L, from March 11, 2008, from March 11, 2008, employed F, from July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009, continued to conclude a labor contract for a fixed period of not more than one year, and from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a labor contract again with the remainder of the instant workers who reach the age of one year and six months from January 1, 2010 to one year and six months from the end of the pertinent year.

C. As above, the Plaintiff applied for the payment of the amount of KRW 6.9 million for the employment promotion subsidy for the aged to the Defendant on July 26, 2010, pursuant to Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 25(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act”), pursuant to Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 25(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act”).

D. However, on August 16, 2010, the Defendant refused payment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant employee is a contractual worker and is not eligible for the continuous employment incentive for the retired employee (However, on May 11, 2010, the Defendant already paid the quarterly incentive for the first quarter of 2010 applied by the Plaintiff).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3 through 6 evidence (including each number), Eul 1, 2, and 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as there is no basis to regard the instant workers as being eligible for the continuous employment incentive, the instant disposition was unlawful (the Plaintiff’s initial application for the payment of incentives was made by the Defendant for the payment of incentives for a fixed period of not more than one year, and the Plaintiff’s continued employment for a fixed period of not more than one year and six months, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful because the instant workers were not contractual workers or fixed-term workers in terms of the employment period and form before the retirement age of the Plaintiff’s claim, namely, not the continuous employment period and form, but the previous employment period and form, that is, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that the instant workers were the contractual workers or fixed-term workers, and the Plaintiff also changed its assertion to the effect that the instant workers were not eligible for the payment of incentives even if they were the fixed-term workers or the fixed

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination (whether the instant worker is a fixed-term worker, and if the worker is a fixed-term worker, whether the worker is included in the beneficiary of incentives for continuous employment of the retired worker)

(1) According to Article 4(1)4 and (2) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion, and Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, elderly workers may be employed for a fixed-term worker with a period exceeding two years of continuous employment. However, as seen earlier, the instant workers already entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff 5 years or older at the time of their employment for a fixed period of not more than one year, and have renewed the employment contract until December 31, 2009, which is the retirement age under the Rules of Employment set by the Plaintiff, until December 31, 2009. According to the above evidence, the contract period is terminated, as well as when the contract period expires (which seems to include replacement in the form of service, etc.) and the contract period is automatically and automatically acknowledged as the grounds for the conclusion of the employment contract, as well as when the contract is concluded with the Plaintiff’s intent or the contract period of the above 10-term of employment contract.

(2) Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 25(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act stipulate that a person who has been employed by a workplace that set the retirement age at 57 or older and has continuously worked for at least 18 months and has reached the retirement age is not retired, or that a person who has reached the retirement age shall be re-employed within 3 months after his/her retirement age

However, such incentives for continuous employment of retired workers are to ensure that an employee who has reached the retirement age by continuously employing a workplace that set the retirement age above a certain age without obtaining a retirement age, or providing financial support to an employer who re-employed within a short period after retirement age, so that he/she can continue to maintain employment relations even after retirement age, regardless of whether or not the retirement age applies, it seems not to be simply intended to enable an employee who has reached the retirement age to continue to maintain employment relations ( regardless of whether or not the retirement age is applied, the incentives for employment promotion of the aged to simply provide support for the elderly to maintain employment relations is separately stipulated in Article 25 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act). (2) The requirements for payment of incentives for continuous employment of retired workers, i.e., "within three months after the retirement age or within three months after the retirement age," under the language and text of the Employment Insurance Act, should not be included in the retirement age of the above worker who has reached the retirement age under the premise that he/she already concluded the retirement age for the same reason.

Therefore, in the case of the instant workers, it shall be deemed that the requirements for payment of the continuous employment incentive for the retired workers were not satisfied. Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.

Judges Park Young-young

Judges Kim Gin-Un

A person shall be appointed.